You've finally gotten around to honestly stating what your purpose is with this thread:

pink_trike wrote:I would need to be religious to be able to use the term in a way that religious people understand it. I'm not religious, and I use it differently because I don't agree with how religious people define or perceive religion.

Here you state it is impossible for you to engage in meaningful dialog with people who hold a different view that you do. So if it's not open dialog your after, what is is?

pink_trike wrote:What I'm advocating (perhaps a bit too strong of a word) is that religion and the religious impulse should be dragged out of the closet and examined free from biases - as I did for years _before_ forming opinions of it and choosing not to engage in it. Before it can be examined free from biases, one must clearly know one's biases. This is consistent with the mission of Buddhist practice by any standard that I know. How can we claim to be something (or not) if we haven't examined it carefully from all sides, not just the side that makes us feel the most comfortable? I'm always surprised by self-described religious people who take religion and religious impulses for granted - who haven't asked themselves what their religious impulse is and why it arises in their mind-stream.

Ah, so it's not dialog you seek at all. What you seek is for other people to re-examine their own beliefs. You've already done your examination and concluded religion is bad, evil, harmful, unnecessary, etc. and you are inviting other people to come to the same conclusion. This is a very far cry from your OP: "I'm naturally curious why other people do [experienced Buddhism in any religious way]."

pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.

A question asked earlier: You've stated that the "religious impulse" (whatever it is) is not the same motivation as that described in the FNT. So my question is this:What is it about the "religious impulse" that is not dukkha? (I even bolded this question earlier in hopes you'd see it.)

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Peter wrote:What you seek is for other people to re-examine their own beliefs. You've already done your examination and concluded religion is bad, evil, harmful, unnecessary, etc. and you are inviting other people to come to the same conclusion.

I have to say, Peter, that I think you're right. Pink, can you understand how some of us might have this impression? I get the feeling that you're making judgments about the degree to which the rest of us have applied critical thinking to our own views. You seem to be setting yourself out as the example for the rest of us to follow. What am I failing to understand in your presentation?

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Making calls to kill off religion, insulting people who value religion... these are not examples of tolerance. Honestly, pink_trike, it is very clear your intent in this thread is not curiosity in the "other side", but rather to persuade the other side to change it's ways. Real, honest curiosity comes from respect.

The calls to "kill off" religion are coming from concern for my fellow humans. As for insulting people who value religion, no one here has done that

"And do you think that unto such as you, A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew, God gave a secret and denied it me! Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!

In my household growing up, I really had it impressed upon me that religion is baaaaad. My father called it fantasy and fairy tales. I remember that my sister moved to Utah and she converted to Mormonism. She was afraid to tell him and she hid it for a long time. If I wanted to do a church activity or any religious activity, I had to do it on the sly.

When I was an older teen my father chilled out a little bit, and he said that I could do whatever I felt was right. But it's been my personal experience that when you grow up with these extremes, one way or the other, it's not ideal. My father was a physician and in my opinion, he worshiped science as much as any religious extremist worships an object of faith. And he was sort of noisy about it.

Ngawang Drolma wrote:In my household growing up, I really had it impressed upon me that religion is baaaaad. My father called it fantasy and fairy tales.... My father was a physician and in my opinion, he worshiped science as much as any religious extremist worships an object of faith. And he was sort of noisy about it.

Would you say it was a learned mind-form, consciously or unconsciously - a conceptual/emotional attachment regarding a group of ideas? A mental template that is applied to certain ideas, experiences, and institutions? A chosen lens - a learned, preferred way of categorizing certain information and authority as separate and other that morphs into an entrenched state of emotionality at the individual level of perception - from which delusion and confusion arises?

For those not getting the joke, that was pink_trikes criticism of religion. It seems clear to me these failings are not inherent to religion at all, but rather inherent to people. I suppose we could ask whether we think religion brings out these qualities more so than an aversion to religion.

Peter wrote: It seems clear to me these failings are not inherent to religion at all, but rather inherent to people. I suppose we could ask whether we think religion brings out these qualities more so than an aversion to religion.

Well said.

Metta,Retro.

If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding: Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)

Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7

Ngawang Drolma wrote:Would you say it was a learned mind-form, consciously or unconsciously - a conceptual/emotional attachment regarding a group of ideas? A mental template that is applied to certain ideas, experiences, and institutions? A chosen lens - a learned, preferred way of categorizing certain information and authority as separate and other that morphs into an entrenched state of emotionality at the individual level of perception - from which delusion and confusion arises?

For those not getting the joke, that was pink_trikes criticism of religion. It seems clear to me these failings are not inherent to religion at all, but rather inherent to people. I suppose we could ask whether we think religion brings out these qualities more so than an aversion to religion.

Hi Peter,

I suppose we could quibble about whether it's "criticism" or "critical observation" which are very different flowers.

I don't experience "aversion" to religion - I'm just very curious and puzzled by it, and sometimes concerned by it. For a long time I had an academic and professional interest (now just personal) in the psychological shadow of religion, the unacknowledged effects of religion and religiosity on mind and society.

I also have the same level of interest in aversion to religion (embattled atheism, for example) and it's psychological shadow effects in individuals and society. Imo, the two mind-states are very similar. It appears that both involve the same attachment but it gets acted out either as craving or aversion (from mild to extreme) - two sides of the same coin.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss

pink_trike wrote:I don't experience "aversion" to religion - I'm just very curious and puzzled by it, and sometimes concerned by it.

Because you are judging other people.

I'd still be interested in an answer to this question, which I've put to you three times before in thread:

Jechbi wrote:

pink_trike wrote:I agree that the FNT is a supreme motivation. I don't see this motivation as a religious impulse.

A question asked earlier: You've stated that the "religious impulse" (whatever it is) is not the same motivation as that described in the FNT. So my question is this:What is it about the "religious impulse" that is not dukkha?(I even bolded this question earlier in hopes you'd see it.)

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

Firstly, this is going to be a fairly long post as I've been working on this response for a while, in between grading essays. I didn't want to be hasty in replying and have been deliberating over my answers. But I now realise how futile this is, for it is not as if I could come up with a respond that would be a final word. On this note, I want to start by saying that I do not think that there can ever be any one essential understanding of or final word on religion.

So, let me say at the outset that I fully agree with you that 'religion' and 'religiosity' should be always be interrogated. I do not doubt that you have experienced firsthand the damaging effects of unreflexive religiosity on the people you have come in contact with--hence, your sincerity in wanting to challenge unskilful and entrenched notions of religion. What you are attempting to do is, undoubtedly, commendable and to an extent necessary; and you are certainly not alone in doing this.

However, to the extent that you are working with an essentialised notion of religion, I would have to disagree with you--from all your replies so far, it seems to me that you sometimes slide into essentialism. Although I must also admit the the thread has taken so many twists and turns that any interpretation of your words or anyone's words would begin to slide the very moment we try to put a finger on it. But that's ok with me, for as I see it, it is this 'impossibility' of containing interpretation that gives communication its 'possibility' (see link below).

Now, let me try to answer your questions. I'll start with the second question. I will give it some attention as it will pretty much answer the other answers.

How familiar are you with the history and origin of the idea of religion (the concept, not the phenomenon)?

Good thoughts, zavk. I had not heard of essentialism before, but I think you may be right, about that. Language is tricky, so when people are not "getting" our point its often useful to look deeply at how we are using words.

This was something Drolma shared in the other thread, which I also think could be helpful. Much of what Jeff (pink trike) is saying makes sense, to me, if looked at from this perspective (below).

"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009

Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote:The search for a spiritual path is born out of suffering. It does not start with lights and ecstasy, but with the hard tacks of pain, disappointment, and confusion. However, for suffering to give birth to a genuine spiritual search, it must amount to more than something passively received from without. It has to trigger an inner realization, a perception which pierces through the facile complacency of our usual encounter with the world to glimpse the insecurity perpetually gaping underfoot. When this insight dawns, even if only momentarily, it can precipitate a profound personal crisis. It overturns accustomed goals and values, mocks our routine preoccupations, leaves old enjoyments stubbornly unsatisfying.

At first such changes generally are not welcome. We try to deny our vision and to smother our doubts; we struggle to drive away the discontent with new pursuits. But the flame of inquiry, once lit, continues to burn, and if we do not let ourselves be swept away by superficial readjustments or slouch back into a patched up version of our natural optimism, eventually the original glimmering of insight will again flare up, again confront us with our essential plight. It is precisely at that point, with all escape routes blocked, that we are ready to seek a way to bring our disquietude to an end.

Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,But never soddens what is open;Uncover, then, what is concealed,Lest it be soddened by the rain.

zavk wrote:Hi Pink,...to the extent that you are working with an essentialised notion of religion

Yes, this is exactly what I've been doing here. I'm experientially aware that there are other dimensions/experiences/perceptions associated with what is commonly known as "religion" and "religiosity" but imo, before these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences can be fruitfully discussed here (and in society in general) there needs to be a shattering distinction drawn between religious materialism and these other dimensions/perceptions/experiences. To do that, we have to look our "religious impulses" and habitual unconscious "religiosity" spang in the eye. I'll talk more about religious materialism later on.

Vision is MindMind is EmptyEmptiness is Clear LightClear Light is UnionUnion is Great Bliss